DOCSLIB.ORG

Bloggers Beware: the Five Commandments for Bloggers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bloggers Beware: the Five Commandments for Bloggers View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Research Collection School Of Law School of Law 11-2005 Bloggers Beware: The iF ve Commandments for Bloggers Warren B. CHIK Singapore Management University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research Part of the Asian Studies Commons, Internet Law Commons, and the Social Media Commons Citation CHIK, Warren B.. Bloggers Beware: The ivF e Commandments for Bloggers. (2005). Singapore Law Gazette. Research Collection School Of Law. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1968 This Magazine Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Collection School Of Law by an authorized administrator of Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. For more information, please email [email protected]. Bloggers Beware: The Five Commandments for Bloggers By Warren B. Chik Published in Singapore Law Gazette, 2005 November There is a need for Singapore bloggers to be aware of legal issues arising from their online diaries, particularly in the light of the recent cases involving seditious remarks made online by bloggers that resulted in jail terms and fines; and earlier in the year, a dispute arose over allegedly defamatory speeches made by a blogger about A*STAR’s Chairman, Philip Yeo, which was resolved amicably, but not without an apology. The threats of legal repercussions in the form of civil lawsuits and criminal charges serve as reminders of the potential legal problems that can arise from blogging, and indeed from any online activity, such as chat rooms, that involves the expression of opinions and views. Most bloggers treat their blogs as merely an online version of their personal diaries or journals. However, they often forget that the private-public distinction between keeping a written diary and one that is open to public viewing, can give rise to civil and criminal liability. This paper will consider some of the potential legal issues that may arise. Its aim is to create awareness and care, as well as to highlight sensitivities, but not to the extent that it may impact, to any significant extent, the greater freedom of expression that so many of us take for granted when navigating cyberspace. Introduction A ‘blog’ is short for a ‘weblog’ or a web application presented in the form of a web page, which generally consists of periodic posts from its author and creator. The term is now commonly used to describe online personal diaries or journals which, unlike their written counterparts, are made accessible to, and often even intentionally created for, public viewing. People use it to share their daily thoughts and experiences as well as a means to express themselves creatively through art, prose and poetry. In reality, the word has a much wider meaning and includes web pages which contain posts from politicians and political parties, corporations and the media, and other organisations and collectives. Some blogs enable visitors to interact by leaving messages or comments while others are non-interactive. It is only the latest in a series of forms for expression and interaction through the electronic medium. Before it became popular to blog, for example, people were already putting up posts through digital communities such as the usenet, discussion fora, e-mail lists and bulletin boards. Currently, online diaries are most popularly used by teenagers and young adults for social intercourse and sharing, as computers and the internet have become a part of life in developed, and even developing, countries. Most personal users have some vague idea of the netiquettes involved, but it is clear that a majority are unaware or unconcerned with the possible legalities which might be involved in what they are doing. This is because individual internet users are perhaps emboldened by what appears to be less legal and regulatory control and enforcement of online activities. They are also perhaps more uninhibited due to a sense of anonymity, such as through the use of pseudonyms and false identities. This has led to increased risk-taking in the forms of unadulterated speech and expression that are appearing in blogs and other online fora. However, recent events have shown that real world consequences still follow words or actions taken in cyberspace. It is therefore useful to spend a little time considering the various legal implications which may arise from blogging so that one can be aware and take care in starting and maintaining a blog, and avoid any nasty surprises along the way. Many of these legal issues are not new and are already applicable to any medium, traditional or electronic, which allows public access. The following are the top five legal quagmires that can arise from blogging that bloggers should be alert to, and which should be avoided. Thou Shalt Not Defame or Spread Malicious Falsehood On a cool spring day on 3 March 2005, a graduate student at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign in the United States sat down before his computer, as was his habit, to express his feelings, thoughts and opinions in his online journal, which he called ‘Caustic Soda’, and through his pseudonym ‘Acid Flask’. Amongst his posts, he made some probably scathing remarks about someone half the world away, in Singapore. Unfortunately, that someone took umbrage at those statements. Even more unfortunately, that someone was a chairman of a governmental organisation, who happens to be Philip Yeo. Philip Yeo felt that the posts made by Acid Flask (or Chen Jiahao) were libellous and defamed him, and sought an apology, a retraction and a promise to cease and desist from making such similar statements against him again. After a failed attempt at such an apology on 26 April 2005, which was dismissed as insincere and not unreserved, a subsequent apology on 8 May 2005 was accepted. The matter never went to litigation.1 The apology appeared in this form on the weblog: I recognize and accept that a number of statements that I made on my on-line journal “Caustic Soda”, in particular the blog post of 3 March 2005, were defamatory of A*STAR, its Chairman, Mr Philip Yeo and its executive officers. I admit and acknowledge that these statements are false and completely without any foundation. I unreservedly apologize to A*STAR, its Chairman Mr Philip Yeo, and its executive officers for the distress and embarrassment caused to them by these statements. I undertake not to repeat the statements, or make further statements of the same or similar effect in this or any other forum or media. I further undertake to remove any such posting anywhere that has not been deleted.2 Fast on the heels of the apology, international press freedom groups and media watchdogs, including the Committee to Protect Journalists (‘CPJ’) and Reporters Without Borders (‘RWB’),3 seized on this incident to criticise Singapore on its strict media controls and oppressive environment in relation to free speech. The threat of, or action on, defamation was specifically singled out as the favoured tool to bludgeon free speech. Defamation is a legitimate action in most Commonwealth countries. The only country which tips the scale in favour of free speech over defamation is the United States, which sets a more stringent test for an action in defamation to succeed.4 Hence, short of an amendment to the current law of defamation,5 which is not likely to be expected, what Singapore bloggers (and bloggers commenting on Singaporeans) should be aware of is how to blog effectively and creatively to avoid legal censure (and the embarrassment of a public apology or the cost of paying damages). Here are some tips on how not to be sued for defamation while writing a weblog: 1 Only blog about yourself and your life, which is not a difficult thing to do for some people, although it will be more difficult for bloggers who are out to find an audience. Alternatively, generally post positive comments. 2 Make comments about society and people in general, but without identifying any person or group of persons in particular. Even caustic remarks and insults can be made, so long as you do not identify anyone or any group of persons for ridicule. That was what Philip Yeo himself did when he made the sweeping comment that ‘Singapore boys are whiny and immature’, which was seconded by one of his female scholars.6 It created a spate of bitter replies from some disenfranchised Singapore men, but there was no question of defamation suits.7 3 If you feel confident enough, make all the comments you want provided that you are: (a) sure of its truthfulness (and can prove it in a court of law);8 (b) making a fair comment (and not just any sort of comment but one of ‘public interest’);9 or (c) replying to comments made about you by another person to defend yourself and to protect your self-interest. You can also get the consent of the subject to insult him or her, but make sure you have it in writing and that it is not obtained illegitimately, such as by duress or undue influence. 4 Make the blog satiric and parodiac. Think Colin Goh’s ‘www.talkingcock.com’ web site or Mr Brown’s ‘www.mrbrown.com’ blog. Biting comments or political and social satire, which no reasonable person will seriously consider to be true, are safe to post.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Singapore Page 1 of 3
    Singapore Page 1 of 3 Singapore International Religious Freedom Report 2008 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor The Constitution provides for freedom of religion; however, other laws and policies restricted this right in some circumstances. There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom by the Government during the period covered by this report. The Government does not tolerate speech or actions that it deems could adversely affect racial or religious harmony. There were no reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice. The U.S. Government discusses religious freedom with the Government as part of its overall policy to promote human rights. Section I. Religious Demography The country has an area of 270 square miles and a population of 4.8 million, of whom 3.6 million are citizens or permanent residents. According to the 2000 census, 85 percent of citizens and permanent residents profess a religion. Of this group, 51 percent practice Buddhism, Taoism, ancestor veneration, or other religious practice traditionally associated with the ethnic Chinese population. Approximately 15 percent of the population is Muslim, 15 percent Christian, and 4 percent Hindu. The remainder is composed of adherents of other religious groups, including small Sikh, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and Jain communities. Among Christians, the majority of whom are ethnic Chinese, 33 percent are Roman Catholic and 67 percent are Protestant. The remaining 15 percent of the population does not profess a religious faith. Approximately 77 percent of the population is ethnic Chinese, 14 percent ethnic Malay, and 8 percent ethnic Indian.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore Civil Society Stakeholders' Report for the Universal Periodic
    Singapore Civil Society Stakeholders’ Report for the Universal Periodic Review A. Introduction 1. This report is a consolidation of concerns from 10 civil society organisations (CSO) listed on the cover page. It is organized in response to the recommendations that were both accepted and rejected, by the State under review1. B. Equality and Non-discrimination 2. Section 377A2 of the Penal Code criminalises sexual contact between two male persons even if they are consenting adults and even if intimacy occurs in private. Despite government promises that it will not be enforced, the law stigmatizes LGBT persons in Singapore, male and female, cisgender and transgender alike. Recommendation (R1): Repeal legal provisions criminalising sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex [WGUPR 97.12]. 3. Marital rape: Section 375(4) and 376A(5) of the Penal Code offers immunity to rapists if they are married to their victims, making them liable only to the lesser charge of “voluntarily causing hurt”. This tells women that marriage removes them from legal protections against rape, except when the wife has commenced formal legal steps to terminate the marriage or when she has obtained a Personal Protection Order (PPO). These exceptions require married women to make prior arrangements if they are to be legally protected from marital rape. Such requirements are of concern since the PPO application procedure is subject to administrative delays, resulting in 90.4% of women being assaulted more than once before they are granted PPOs.3 R2: Introduce legislation to make marital rape illegal in all circumstances, because consent to marriage should not be equated with consent to rape and sexual assault [WGUPR 97.13].
    [Show full text]
  • New Seditious Libel Judith Schenck Koffler
    Cornell Law Review Volume 69 Article 5 Issue 4 April 1984 New Seditious Libel Judith Schenck Koffler Bennett L. Gershman Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Judith Schenck Koffler and Bennett L. Gershman, New Seditious Libel, 69 Cornell L. Rev. 816 (1984) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol69/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NEW SEDITIOUS LIBEL Judith Schenck Koffert & Bennett L Gershman t Let all men take heede how they complayne in wordes against any magistrate, for they are gods. -- Star Chamber saying You've just got to trust us. -Richard Helms, former CIA Director INTRODUCTION Seditious libel is the crime of criticizing the government. It trans- forms dissent, which the first amendment has traditionally been thought to protect, into heresy. Fundamentally antidemocratic, the distinguish- ing feature of seditious libel is, as its nomenclature suggests, injury to the reputation of government or its functionaries. Those who impugn au- thority's good image are diabolized and their criticisms punished as blasphemy. In this way, the doctrine lends a juristic mask to political repression. Seditious libel is alive and well despite attempts of judges and scholars to knock it on the head once and for all.' It is difficult to recog- nize, however, for it wears the mantle of official secrecy and waves the banner of national security.
    [Show full text]
  • Sedition Act As a Pillar of Strength in Maintaining Unification for Multiracial Nation
    International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 6, Issue 4 (Apr.) ISSN 2289-1552 2015 SEDITION ACT AS A PILLAR OF STRENGTH IN MAINTAINING UNIFICATION FOR MULTIRACIAL NATION Roos Niza Mohd Shariff Senior Lecturer (Law) School of Law, Government & International Studies Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia Email: [email protected]; [email protected] ABSTRACT Malaysian Sedition Act provides sentences for seditious acts. Late 2014, there was a suggestion to abolish this Sedition Act for reason that Malaysia still able to maintain its multiracial unity without this Act. Thus, this working paper is to analyze the purpose of the implementation of Sedition Act in Malaysia and the impacts if the Act is abolish. Qualitative research method is used through analytical study of case laws and provisions of laws stated in the Sedition Act and the Federal Constitution. Research findings showed that Sedition Act had been in practice since the British occupation for the purpose of maintaining the unity of multiracial community with different religions and customs. This working paper concluded that Sedition Act is in fact a pillar of strength in maintaining the unification of multiracial nation in Malaysia. The Act upheld a crucial part of statutory provisions in the Federal Constitution for the stability and unity of union. Moreover, Sedition Act provides blanket protection via maintaining protection and security for the purpose of harmonious and safe nation. Keywords: Sedition Act, multiracial unity, nation stability Introduction It is not easy to ensure unity and stability in a country with many races, ethnics, religions, beliefs and customs like Malaysia.
    [Show full text]
  • Sedition Act
    LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt SEDITION ACT CHAPTER 11:04 Act 10 of 1920 Amended by 172/1961 8/1962 36 of 1971 136/1976 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1–22 .. UNOFFICIAL VERSION L.R.O. UPDATED TO 31ST DECEMBER 2016 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt 2 Chap. 11:04 Sedition Index of Subsidiary Legislation Page Prohibited Publications Order … … … … … … 12 UNOFFICIAL VERSION UPDATED TO 31ST DECEMBER 2016 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt Sedition Chap. 11:04 3 CHAPTER 11:04 SEDITION ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Meaning of seditious intention. Limitation. Determination of intention. 4. Offences. POWER TO PROHIBIT IMPORTATION OF SEDITIOUS PUBLICATIONS 5. Power to prohibit importation of seditious publications. SUSPENSION OF NEWSPAPERS CONTAINING SEDITIOUS MATTER 6. Suspension of newspapers containing seditious matter. POWER TO PROHIBIT CIRCULATION OF SEDITIOUS PUBLICATIONS 7. Power of Court to prohibit circulation of seditious publications. SUPPLEMENTAL 8. Punishment for offences. 9. Consent of Director of Public Prosecutions. 10. Saving of other powers. 11. Limitation on legal proceedings. 12. Evidence. 13. Search warrant. UNOFFICIAL VERSION L.R.O. UPDATED TO 31ST DECEMBER 2016 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt 4 Chap. 11:04 Sedition CHAPTER 11:04 SEDITION ACT 1950 Ed. An Act to provide for the punishment of seditious acts and Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Expression Versus Reputation the Supreme Court’S Weighing of Interests
    Chapter 10 Free Expression Versus Reputation The Supreme Court’s Weighing of Interests Carl a. solano and edWard J. sholinsKy The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has consistently touted the protections provided by the Commonwealth for freedoms of speech and press. As the Court explained in Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, “Freedom of expression has a robust constitutional history and place in Pennsylvania. The very first Article of the Pennsylvania Constitution consists of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, and the first section of that Article affirms, among other things, that all citizens ‘have certain inherent and indefeasible rights.’ Among those inherent rights are those delineated in § 7, which address ‘Freedom of Press and Speech; Libels.’ ” 1 The Court observed that Article I, Section 7 is broader than the federal Constitution’s First Amendment in that it “affirms the ‘invaluable right’ to the ‘free communication of thoughts and opinions,’ and the right of ‘every citizen’ to ‘speak freely’ on ‘any subject’ so long as that liberty is not abused.”2 In the long history of the Commonwealth, however, the Court has struggled to match this broad expression of freedom with concerns about its “abuse.” That tension is most clearly reflected in the Court’s decisions on the law of defamation. I. The Foundational Period The Commonwealth’s solicitude for freedom of expression has been traced to its founder, William Penn, and his prosecution in 1670 “for the ‘crime’ of preaching to an unlawful assembly.”3 As set forth in the preceding chapter, Penn’s Frame of Government of Pennsyl- vania guaranteed freedom of conscience and religious worship.4 While other forms of free expression were not formally guaranteed, the colony’s Quaker- based tolerance influenced some early legal decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • RIGHTS in REVERSE: One Year Under the Perikatan Nasional Government in Malaysia MARCH 2021 RIGHTS in REVERSE
    RIGHTS IN REVERSE: One year under the Perikatan Nasional government in Malaysia MARCH 2021 RIGHTS IN REVERSE: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Malaysian people have experienced seismic upheavals in the past year. In late February 2020, the ruling Pakatan Harapan government collapsed amid surreptitious political manoeuvring. On 1 March 2020, Malaysia’s King appointed Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin as Prime Minister after determining that he commanded the support of a majority of elected MPs under the umbrella of the Perikatan Nasional coalition. The turnover in government marked a political sea change and the abrupt end to the reform agenda of the Pakatan Harapan government. The ascendence of the Perikatan Nasional government coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia. The government implemented a strict Movement Control Order (MCO) that severely curtailed travel and social interactions. While the government’s efforts to stymie the spread of the virus have been successful in many respects, authorities have at times applied measures in a discriminatory manner and used the pandemic as an excuse to restrict human rights. This report examines the Perikatan Nasional government’s record on fundamental freedoms during its first year in power. Specifically, the report considers the government’s actions against its obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. These rights are the focus of ARTICLE 19 and CIVICUS’s work in Malaysia. Last year’s change of government has proven to be a major setback for fundamental freedoms in Malaysia. While the Pakatan Harapan government’s track record on human rights was disappointing in many ways,1 it took some steps to roll back repressive laws and policies and was much more open to engaging with civil society and the human rights community than its predecessor.
    [Show full text]
  • MAY OIL NEVER TEAR US APART How Political Institutions Shape Federative Crises on Oil Revenues
    Fundação Getúlio Vargas – FGV Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas - EBAPE Ph.D. Thesis MAY OIL NEVER TEAR US APART How Political Institutions Shape Federative Crises on Oil Revenues Ph.D. Student MAURICIO CARLOS RIBEIRO Thesis Advisor CARLOS PEREIRA Rio de Janeiro, July 2016 Fundação Getúlio Vargas – FGV Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas - EBAPE MAY OIL NEVER TEAR US APART How Political Institutions Shape Federative Crises on Oil Revenues MAURICIO CARLOS RIBEIRO Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Business Administration at the Fundação Getulio Vargas - Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas – Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration. Date of defense: September 29th, 2016 Thesis Advisor CARLOS PEREIRA Ficha catalográfica elaborada pela Biblioteca Mario Henrique Simonsen/FGV Ribeiro, Mauricio Carlos Araujo May oil never tear us apart: how political institutions shape federative crisis on oil revenues / Maurício Carlos Ribeiro. – 2016. 251 f. Tese (doutorado) - Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas, Centro de Formação Acadêmica e Pesquisa. Orientador: Carlos Pereira. Inclui bibliografia. 1. Indústria petrolífera – Política governamental. 2. Petróleo. 3. Federalismo. 4. Conflito. I. Pereira Filho, Carlos Eduardo Ferreira. II. Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas. Centro de Formação Acadêmica e Pesquisa. III. Título. CDD – 351 To the memory of the millions of civilians and soldiers who died in civil conflicts on oil wealth around the world. “Now that there’s oil in South Sudan, the next war is not going to be just 17 years, it is going to be 170 years.” (President Gaafar Nimeiri of Sudan, circa 1980) “Oil is not of the government of the State of Rio de Janeiro, it is not of Petrobras; it is of Brazilian people and we need to discuss the fate of this oil.” (Former Brazilian president Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, August 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Sedition Act 1948
    015e.fm Page 1 Monday, March 27, 2006 11:41 AM LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 15 SEDITION ACT 1948 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE REVISION OF LAWS ACT 1968 IN COLLABORATION WITH MALAYAN LAW JOURNAL SDN BHD AND PERCETAKAN NASIONAL MALAYSIA BHD 2006 015e.fm Page 2 Monday, March 27, 2006 11:41 AM 2 SEDITION ACT 1948 First enacted………………1948 (Ordinance No. 14 of 1948) Revised ………………1969 (Act 15 w.e.f. 14 April 1970) PREVIOUS REPRINTS First Reprint ……………1992 Second Reprint…………1999 PREPARED FOR PUBLICATION BY MALAYAN LAW JOURNAL SDN BHD AND PRINTED BY PERCETAKAN NASIONAL MALAYSIA BERHAD KUALA LUMPUR BRANCH 2006 015e.fm Page 3 Monday, March 27, 2006 11:41 AM 3 LAWS OF MALAYSIA Act 15 SEDITION ACT 1948 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Short title 2. Interpretation 3. Seditious tendency 4. Offences 5. Legal proceedings 6. Evidence 7. Innocent receiver of seditious publication 8. Issue of search warrant 9. Suspension of newspaper containing seditious matter 10. Power of court to prohibit circulation of seditious publications 11. Arrest without warrant 015e.fm Page 4 Monday, March 27, 2006 11:41 AM 015e.fm Page 5 Monday, March 27, 2006 11:41 AM 5 LAWS OF MALAYSIA Act 15 SEDITION ACT 1948 An Act to provide for the punishment of sedition. [Peninsular Malaysia—19 July 1948, Ord. No. 14 of 1948; Sabah—28 May 1964, L.N. 149/1964; Sarawak—20 November 1969, P.U.(A)476/1969] Short title 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Seditious in Singapore! Free Speech and the Offence of Promoting Ill-Will and Hostility Between Different Racial Groups
    Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [2011] 351–372 SEDITIOUS IN SINGAPORE! FREE SPEECH AND THE OFFENCE OF PROMOTING ILL-WILL AND HOSTILITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS Jaclyn Ling-Chien Neo∗ In 2005, the archaic laws of sedition were summoned to counteract speech considered offensive to racial and religious groups in Singapore. Under the Sedition Act, it is seditious to, inter alia, promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population. In a later case involving religious proselytisation, a Christian couple was charged and convicted of sedition under the same section. This article examines this new phenomenon. It investigates the manner in which these laws have been employed and jurisprudentially developed to restrain speech on race and/or religion in Singapore. The article argues that the current state of the law is highly problematic for its adverse impact on free speech as well as for its conceptual confusions with alternative bases for restraining speech. It contends that failure to extricate the existing conceptual confusions is adverse to free speech and community integration in the long run. A threefold legal framework is proposed to provide clearer guidance on inter-racial and inter-religious interaction within the Singaporean society. I. Introduction In 2005, the Singapore blogosphere was scandalised by reports of blatant online racism. A local blogger had parodied the halal logo, placing it next to a pig’s head and, among other derisive and vulgar assaults on the Malay-Muslim community and its customs, compared Islam to Satanism.1 His blog entry sparked a slew of racial slurs attacking both Malays and Chinese in Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Publication
    SINGAPORE By H R Dipendra 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. What were the most important courts decisions on FoE in 2015 in your country/region in terms of their legal reasoning, legal outcome, and/or precedent setting? There are three main judgments on FoE issued last year that were of particular significance: • Public Prosecutor v Amos Yee Pang Sang:The Accused, Amos Yee (aged 16 years old) was charged under Section 298 of the Penal Code which criminalises the uttering of words with the deliberate intent of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any persons. Amos had uploaded a video that accused Lee Kuan Yew, the former Prime Minister of Singapore of being power- hungry and compared him with Christianity. Amos also faced a charge under Section 292(1)(a) of the Penal Code for transmitting by electronic means obscene materials. Amos had created a blog post, entitled “Lee Kuan Yew buttfucking Margaret Thatcher”, and uploaded a Photoshop photo of such an imagery. Amos was sentenced to a total of four weeks’ imprisonment. This case had garnered significant international attention, in part due to the tender age of the Accused. The Un Human Rights Office for instance, expressed its concerned about the case, and called for the immediate release of Amos in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Singapore is a signatory to. • Lee Hsien Loong v Ngerng Yi Ling Roy: The Defendant, Roy Ngerng, had written a blogpost where he compared the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong who is also the Chairman of GIC Private Limited (“GIC”)(which manages Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund), with the leaders of City Harvest Church who were at that point of time being tried for criminal misappropriation.
    [Show full text]
  • Malaysia-SUARAM Document Overview – Sedition Cases
    Document of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Sedition case in Malaysia (2010 - 2014) September 11, 2014 Year 2010 Investigation 1. Hassan Skodeng (aka Irwan Abdul Rahman) / Blogger / Sept 10 Hassan was charged under sedition after posting a blog piece poking fun at power firm Tenaga Nasional Bhd entitled "TNB to sue WWF over Earth Hour". The charge against him was later dropped. 2. Wee Meng Chee (aka Namewee) / Musician & Film maker / August 10 He was investigated for sedition after posting a YouTube video named "Nah" which drew allegations he was stirring up ethnic tensions in Malaysia. 3. Badrul Hisham Shaharin aka Chegubard / PKR supreme council member / 10 July 10 Badrul Hisham was detained under the Sedition Act in relation to a posting on his blog about the Yang-di-Pertuan Agong and the royal institution. Charges 4. Zulkiflee SM Anwar Ulhaque (aka Zunar) / Cartoonist / charge on 24 Sept 10 He was arrested and charged for sedition for publishing book Cartoon-O-Phobia deemed detrimental to public order. 5. Hawee Othman / Bookstore owner / charge on 21 Aug 2010 She was charged under sedition for selling a monthly magazine titled "Isu Dalam Karton" published by cartoonist Zulkifli Anwar Ulhaque. Page | 1 Document of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Sedition case in Malaysia (2010 - 2014) September 11, 2014 Year 2011 Investigation 1. Abdul Aziz Bari / Law professor at the Universiti Islam Antarabangsa / Oct 11 He was investigated under the Sedition Act and the Communications and Multimedia Act for his comments made in reaction to the Selangor Sultan's decree on JAIS search on a church in Petaling Jaya.
    [Show full text]